Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Louima Fee Dispute May Be Over

The ferocious courtroom battle over $3 million in legal fees from the Abner Louima civil lawsuit stopped abruptly yesterday as the two sides negotiated a possible settlement.

Mr. Louima was in the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, ready to testify, when the proceedings were interrupted for a long conference among the lawyers. Afterward, the magistrate, Cheryl L. Pollak, left the courtroom with no explanation of what was occurring.

But lawyers quickly confirmed what had been evident as the many lawyers involved in the case met in hallway corners during a long delay.

One of them, K. C. Okoli, said that testimony had been suspended because of ''a prospective settlement'' in the suit over fees stemming from the $8.75 million settlement of Mr. Louima's civil suit against the city and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association after he was tortured at a Brooklyn police station in 1997.

Various participants provided different explanations for why each side was seeking a way out of the occasionally tawdry wrangling behind one of the most shocking police brutality cases in the city's history.

The sudden settlement talks came after almost two full days of testimony by Brian Figeroux, a Brooklyn lawyer who began representing Mr. Louima within a few days after the assault. Mr. Figeroux and his law partner, Carl W. Thomas, who has since died, claimed that they were edged out of participation in the suit by a better-known team that included Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. and Barry C. Scheck.

The terms of the possible deal were unclear. But some participants said that Mr. Cochran's group had improved on an offer that would have given Mr. Thomas's widow and four children about $200,000. Lawyers said it was uncertain what Mr. Figeroux's share of a settlement might be. The lawyers are to return to court on Tuesday.

Most of the participants refused to disclose their positions in the talks. But the bitterness flowed freely.

While refusing to acknowledge even that negotiations were under way, one of the lawyers in Mr. Cochran's group, Peter J. Neufeld, told reporters that Mr. Figeroux's testimony had devastated his own case. The lawyers in Mr. Cochran's group say that Mr. Figeroux had vowed to ''go to war,'' even if that meant damaging Mr. Louima's case to get part of the legal fees.

Under questioning from a Cochran group lawyer, Michael S. Ross, Mr. Figeroux had been forced to defend an attack on Mr. Louima's credibility that he included in a sworn statement he filed in the fee dispute. In the statement, he said that Mr. Louima's testimony had changed on central facts of the attack.

On the witness stand, Mr. Figeroux was argumentative. ''We did not resign'' from Mr. Louima's legal team, he said. ''We were forced out.'' Mr. Figeroux, 42, who is from Trinidad, said he was interested in protecting immigrants, and suggested that his adversaries did not share those priorities.

The representatives from Mr. Figeroux's side of the case have their own divisions, which several lawyers said were complicating the negotiations. A lawyer for Mr. Thomas's estate, Bradley D. Simon, pointed out to Magistrate Pollak that Mr. Figeroux's attack on Mr. Louima's credibility had been made after Mr. Thomas's death. He suggested that Mr. Thomas's family should not be punished for any unprofessional conduct on Mr. Figeroux's part.

Another lawyer, Casilda Roper-Simpson, was working on the case along with Mr. Figeroux and Mr. Thomas, and lawyers say she may have to fight Mr. Figeroux and Mr. Thomas's widow over how much her share of any fees might be.

Her lawyer, Mr. Okoli, suggested the settlement talks had nothing to do with any weaknesses exposed by Mr. Figeroux's testimony. He said he thought the Cochran team had been interested in settling to save on increasing legal costs and because ''they do not want to put on Mr. Cochran'' as a witness.

Mr. Neufeld had a response. ''It's preposterous,'' he said.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this article appears in print on October 19, 2002, on Page B00001 of the National edition with the headline: Louima Fee Dispute May Be Over. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe